General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSnowden: I Had More Access Than Almost Any Other Official
Edward Snowden: I Had More Access Than Almost Any Other Official in the Intelligence CommunityThe man responsible for leaking classified National Security Agency documents says he wasn't just "some low-level employee."
... Snowden was young. He was just a contractor. "How did a 29-year-old have access to all those classified documents?" asked Sonia Brindi of the Portuguese television network Globo during a lengthy new interview with Snowden in Moscow ... "How did you access them?"
The public's bewilderment is misplaced, Snowden replied. "There's sort of been a misinformation occurring in the U.S. media, that was then propagated by the international media, which was that I was some low-level employee, I didn't really have any understanding of these materials," he said. "I had functioning at a very senior level. I've written policies on behalf of the United States. I had been in meetings with the very top technical officials on the NSA and the CIA" ...
... "I would love to face court in the U.S.," he said but only if reforms are made to the Espionage Act ...
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Thanks for that one.
randome
(34,845 posts)In-fucking-credible! Hey, Ed, if you ever visit DU to see what people think of you, it's time you stopped the bullshit and came home.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)If we are to believe the he totally didn't plan on going to russia line.
Cha
(295,926 posts)that off. But, high level super spy lies.. a lot.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)He has diarrhea of the mouth, doesn't know when to shut up. He continues to convince me he wanted to be guilty of espionage before he ever took the first assignment with the NRA.
randome
(34,845 posts)Why else would he abandon his girlfriend and his family in order to 'reveal' to us that the NSA spies on other countries?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
baldguy
(36,649 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)very proud of my consistent support for Whistle Blowers just to be clear, do you have something other than the boring attempt to insult most of DU, to contradict Snowden's statements? I didn't notice anything of substance countering what he said, a link to some credible source would be helpful.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)and now are becoming increasingly absurd. Low level contractors do not get a greater level of system access than their employers. That's simply not how things work.
Lies like this are par for the course for your typical RW libertarian, so the unquestioning idolization of the RW libertarian Ed Snowden could only be one of three things: profound ignorance, delusion, or collaboration. Would you rather confess to one of the other two?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)about everything? I believe there was quite a discussion about how many 'analysts', in the millions I believe, have access to supposedly 'sensitive' material.
Or were not paying attention to that Whistle Case as it unfolded?
You have provided nothing to disprove Snowden's statements, just your uninformed opinion. I gave you a chance to do so, it's clear you are unable to. Btw, people's opinions on the internet are not proof of anything, but there's always a chance they actually can back up those opinions which is why I usually ask for something to do that.
No point in continuing a discussion the is just about opinion. Thanks for the responses anyhow.
djean111
(14,255 posts)very well have had access to everything. I did, as sysadmin on HP and Tandem systems.
Bottom line, and only important thing - is what he revealed true or false? Seems true, there is such an uproar......
merrily
(45,251 posts)Not only is there an uproar, but there has been no denial, not even as to what his position was. After being played Snowden's tape, Kerry said only that he (Kerry) was "not about to get into" what Snowden was or wasn't.
Kerry didn't deny the bit about Snowden's being in Russia because of the US revoking his passport while he was airborne, either.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)The NSA now tells us they're able to explain why Snowden was able to roam so free through the computers including many niches he should not have otherwise been able to access. And it turns out, the NSA tells us, it was because they had given Snowden a different assignment, a unique assignment if you will, just because he was in Hawaii.
Hawaii is at the end of a long, long tagline with Washington and it's not necessarily always up to date on the latest procedures and things that should be gotten from Washington. Further, if there's ever any type of disconnect between Fort Meade and Hawaii technically or communications-wise Fort Meade, the headquarters of the NSA, was very concerned that somehow they would not be able to reach Hawaii: literally [would be unable to] communicate with them in the event of, I don't know, a nuclear problem or an earthquake or something.
What Snowden was doing was downloading and copying and backing up hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of pages of documents to make sure Hawaii had it all in case something went wrong. ... What no one realized at the time, of course, is that he was also making copies for his own reasons.
If he had that much access and was simply a low-level person - then the NSA's incompetence would be all the more staggering.
Uncle Joe
(58,112 posts)If he had that much access and was simply a low-level person - then the NSA's incompetence would be all the more staggering.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 4, 2014, 12:22 AM - Edit history (1)
The press has them. And his agreement with the press IIRC is that nothing is to be made public that could conceivably actually hurt the US. We also know he had access to an incredible stash of documents, but we don't know if he had access to emails - that's usually a separate thing (files vs. email server).
So he might be BSing us - but there are reasonable explanations for what he has and hasn't disclosed.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)This clear and present danger to the republic has to wait to be exposed for what? Greenwald's book tour?
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)I've already explained this to someone else but apparently the inability to conjure possible scenarios outside of a preconceived narrative is epidemic here.
If all of the information was dumped at one time, the story would last for a few days or weeks and then our collective attention would latch onto something else. The story and the work would be lost. The government and its yeomen know this. Which is why the "milking the story" accusation is tossed around by so many people, including you.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)I find it in the same sources that anyone else paying attention has access to.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Or brilliant counter-play.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)it prevents a defendant from properly defending themselves in court - you know, don't want to reveal state secrets that will help the enemy and that stuff. Much is kept secret. It's extremely unfair, which is why it was very rarely used. Until now.
The Obama Administration has prosecuted more people under the Espionage Act, for whistle blowing or leaking information, than all other Presidents combined. Somehow, things are more dangerous today than under world wars and the Cold War.
struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)has prosecuted more people under the Espionage Act than all other Presidents combined" is just complete bullshit
By June 1918, there had been at least 1181 prosecutions under the Espionage Act (pdf). The Act has since been amended on several occasions, with repeal of some of the worst amendments in 1921 in the wake of the Palmer raids
There have been over 150 espionage prosecutions in the US against US citizens alone since the 1940s
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I regret the error.
I'll correct it.
Thanks for the heads up.
struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)so it includes hobbies such as informing foreign governments about secret US programs, as Snowden did when he provided the Chinese with a list of NSA targets in China -- but such activities have regularly been prosecuted in the US as espionage for many decades
NSA hacks China, leaker Snowden claims
By Jethro Mullen and Chelsea J. Carter, CNN
updated 5:32 AM EDT, Thu June 13, 2013
... NSA leaker Edward Snowden told the South China Morning Post on Wednesday ... <that> ... Among some 61,000 reported targets of the National Security Agency .. are hundreds of computers in China ... The Morning Post said it had seen documents provided by Snowden ...
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)combined.
struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)the standard rule is that you are tried under the law as it was at the time of the offense, not as it was later amended
dawg
(10,610 posts)He's referring to the parts of the law that would allow the government to effectively gag him at his trial, disallowing any evidence he might want to present as being a vital national security secret.
Only a fool would submit to a trial under such circumstances.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)which means the defendant is under a huge disadvantage in defending themselves.
Here's a good explanation.
http://pando.com/2014/01/22/how-whistleblowers-are-barred-from-defending-themselves-in-court/
Fred Drum
(293 posts)sort of like the telecoms got
i wonder if snowden made any campaign contributions?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Snowden had more responsibility at the NSA than people may think, he said. "I was what's called a systems administrator or a superuser, which means that I had more access than almost any other official in the intelligence community," he said. "Because even the director of the National Security Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency or any of these things, when they want to see some documents, when they want to understand some program, they have to ask someone: 'Show me this, tell me about this, brief this for me.' "
And that someone was Snowden. "As a systems administrator, you are the person who can see all of that, because you are the one who controls all of the information."
Is this true or false? Idk. How about you?
djean111
(14,255 posts)Just remembering, on the Hewlett Packard 3000, we had a program from Vesoft (Vladimir and Eugene Volokh, treated like rock stars at conventions) that was actually called God. Whoever had the password to that could do and see anything and everything.
Sysadmin is a lot of responsibility, and needs to have access to everything, as a general rule, in case things go bad. or people fuck up, or don't understand something.
HipChick
(25,485 posts)are a bit different...everything is logged on classified systems...he was a low level dongle thief
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Fred Drum
(293 posts)that must explain why the NSA immediately knew what he'd taken
no wait, thats the opposite of reality
bizarre
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)The anonymous NSA staffers priority in contacting me, in fact, was to refute stories that have surfaced as the NSA and the media attempt to explain how a contractor was able to obtain and leak the tens of thousands of highly classified documents that have become the biggest public disclosure of NSA secrets in history. According to the source, Snowden didnt dupe coworkers into handing over their passwords, as one report has claimed. Nor did Snowden fabricate SSH keys to gain unauthorized access, he or she says.
Instead, theres little mystery as to how Snowden gained his access: It was given to him.
That kid was a genius among geniuses, says the NSA staffer. NSA is full of smart people, but anybody who sat in a meeting with Ed will tell you he was in a class of his own Ive never seen anything like it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/12/16/an-nsa-coworker-remembers-the-real-edward-snowden-a-genius-among-geniuses/
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)The question is whether the NSA had a watchdog on privilege escalation on the systems.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)liberal N proud
(60,302 posts)That was until he told the Chinese and the Russians.
I had a brother who was military intel. Every time we were together he would give me that bullshit line.
BeyondGeography
(39,284 posts)he duped his co-workers into giving him their passwords.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I can tell you half of my coworkers passwords because they are so simple a child could crack them. A string of lowercase characters with nothing capitalized and no numerical characters is just begging to be used.
BeyondGeography
(39,284 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)I spent several months of being in 2nd grade without glasses actually having to watch the teacher make motions on the chalkboard to deduce what was written. To this day, I still can see what people are writing or typing due to the motion of their hands.
Believe me, I would exchange that for having better eyesight.
blm
(112,920 posts)I never thought he was a low-level employee, either.
No one who works for private intel and security firms loyal to BushInc are 'low-level' employees in a Dem administration.
grasswire
(50,130 posts).....considering the awful stories there about Obama now, mostly by Ron Fournier..
struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)So I begin not to pay it much mind
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that is going to be a blockbuster.
Hekate
(90,202 posts)... to say the least.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)That will be the bomb that shows that the NSA DOES spy on American citizens on American soil. Major violation of the 4th Amendment.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Court finds FISA constitutional - United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir. 1984)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
[2] Nos. 83-1313, 83-1315, 83-1317, 83-1318
[3] 1984.C02.40409 <http://www.versuslaw.com>; 743 F.2d 59
[4] decided: August 8, 1984.
[5] UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
ANDREW DUGGAN, EAMON MEEHAN, GABRIEL MEGAHEY, AND COLM MEEHAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
.
.
.
Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 912-14 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1144, 71 L. Ed. 2d 296, 102 S. Ct. 1004 (1982); United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871, 875 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 890, 54 L. Ed. 2d 175, 98 S. Ct. 263 (1977); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593, 605 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 881, 42 L. Ed. 2d 121, 95 S. Ct. 147 (1974); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960, 39 L. Ed. 2d 575, 94 S. Ct. 1490 (1974); but see Zweibon v. Mitchell, 170 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 516 F.2d 594, 633-651 (D.C. Cir. 1975), (dictum), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944, 48 L. Ed. 2d 187, 96 S. Ct. 1685 (1976). The Supreme Court specifically declined to address this issue in United States v. United States District Court [Keith, J.], 407 U.S. 297, 308, 321-22, 32 L. Ed. 2d 752, 92 S. Ct. 2125 (1972) (hereinafter referred to as " Keith " , but it had made clear that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment may change when differing governmental interests are at stake, see Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S. Ct. 1727, 18 L. Ed. 2d 930 (1967), and it observed in Keith that the governmental interests presented in national security investigations differ substantially from those presented in traditional criminal investigations. 407 U.S. at 321-324.
[85] In Keith, the government argued that Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, 18 U.S.C. ?? 2510 et seq. ("Title III" , recognized the constitutional authority of the President to conduct domestic security surveillances without a warrant. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the legislative history made clear that Title III was not intended to legislate with respect to national security surveillances. The Court went on to hold that a warrant was required in Keith under the Fourth Amendment; but the implication of its discussion was that the warrant requirement is flexible and that different standards may be compatible with the Fourth Amendment in light of the different purposes and practical considerations of domestic national security surveillances. 407 U.S. at 321-24. Thus, the Court observed
[86] that domestic security surveillance may involve different policy and practical considerations from the surveillance of "ordinary crime." The gathering of security intelligence is often long range and involves the interrelation of various sources and types of information. The exact targets of such surveillance may be more difficult to identify than in surveillance operations against many types of crime specified in Title III. Often, too, the emphasis of domestic intelligence gathering is on the prevention of unlawful activity or the enhancement of the Government's preparedness for some possible future crisis or emergency. Thus, the focus of domestic surveillance may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of crime.
[87] Id. at 322-23.
[88] Against this background, Congress passed FISA to settle what it believed to be the unresolved question of the applicability of the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement to electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes, and to "remove any doubt as to the lawfulness of such surveillance." H.R. Rep. 1283, pt. I, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 25 (1978) ("House Report" . FISA reflects both Congress's "legislative judgment" that the court orders and other procedural safeguards laid out in the Act "are necessary to insure that electronic surveillance by the U.S. Government within this country conforms to the fundamental principles of the fourth amendment," S. Rep. No. 701, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 13, reprinted in 1978 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3973, 3982 ("Senate Report 95-701" , and its attempt to fashion a "secure framework by which the Executive Branch may conduct legitimate electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes within the context of this Nation's commitment to privacy and individual rights." S. Rep. No. 604, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 15, reprinted in 1978 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3904, 3916 ("Senate Report 95-604" . In constructing this framework, Congress gave close scrutiny to departures from those Fourth Amendment doctrines applicable in the criminal-investigation context in order
[89] to ensure that the procedures established in [FISA] are reasonable in relation to legitimate foreign counterintelligence requirements and the protected rights of individuals. Their reasonableness depends, in part, upon an assessment of the difficulties of investigating activities planned, directed, and supported from abroad by foreign intelligence services and foreign-based terrorist groups. The differences between ordinary criminal investigations to gather evidence of specific crimes and foreign counterintelligence investigations to uncover and monitor clandestine activities have been taken into account. Other factors include the international responsibilities of the United States, the duties of the Federal Government to the States in matters involving foreign terrorism, and the need to maintain the secrecy of lawful counterintelligence sources and methods.
[90] Senate Report 95-701, at 14-15, reprinted in 1978 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3973, 3983.
[91] We regard the procedures fashioned in FISA as a constitutionally adequate balancing of the individual's Fourth Amendment rights against the nation's need to obtain foreign intelligence information. The governmental concerns are detailed in the passages quoted above from Keith and the legislative history of FISA, and those concerns make reasonable the adoption of prerequisites to surveillance that are less stringent than those precedent to the issuance of a warrant for a criminal investigation. See generally United States v. Belfield, 223 U.S. App. D.C. 417, 692 F.2d 141, 148 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (examining in camera review procedures of FISA (see Part II. B. 2., infra)). Against this background, the Act requires that the FISA Judge find probable cause to believe that the target is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, and that the place at which the electronic surveillance is to be directed is being used or is about to be used by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; and it requires him to find that the application meets the requirements of the Act. These requirements make it reasonable to dispense with a requirement that the FISA Judge find probable cause to believe that surveillance will in fact lead to the gathering of foreign intelligence information.*fn5 Further, if the target is a United States person, the Act requires the FISA Judge to determine that the executive branch's certifications pursuant to ? 1804(a)(7) are not clearly erroneous in light of the application as a whole, and to find that the application properly proposes, as required by ? 1801(h), to minimize the intrusion upon the target's privacy.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I'm asking to know what the penalty is for violating the Fourth Amendment.
Let's assume that is established.
I would like someone to at least point out the jail sentence, fine, or whatever it is, that proceeds from finding a violation.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)When someone has to repeatedly TELL you how smart/rich/influential/powerful/sexy/generally great they are, 99 times out of 100 it's a smokescreen...
At least we know beyond a doubt that he isn't ever coming back unless he gets that miracle presidential pardon he's banking on; because they aren't reforming the Espionage Act just for his retroactive benefit...I might as well say "Yeah, I'll come back to the U.S. to face that murder charge, but only if reforms are made to murder laws..." (and yes, before anybody asks, I can put up a very strong argument that the person I murdered was in the public interest)
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Did you expect him to answer, "Aw shucks, jus lucky ah guess."
FYI, there are countries that refuse to extradite based on the fact that we execute. So, yeah, seeking asylum based on our "murder laws" (state sanctioned murder) is an affirmative plea for escaping extradition.
randome
(34,845 posts)His stories get more outrageous as this 'affair' nears its one year anniversary. One year and still nothing illegal revealed.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)since it has been answered repeatedly in every major story over the past year...
But once asked, I expected Snowden to give a direct answer without the self-congratulatory heroic embellishment that he constantly exudes...
SamKnause
(13,043 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)moondust
(19,917 posts)Not enough time to do much more than copy documents, maybe scan a few things now and then but without the benefit of historical context to understand their meaning or importance.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Is that what he really wants to be saying here?